> and its pros
> and cons I would strongly advise anyone evaluating a
> framework to
> actually evaluate it by using it and *not* by soliciting
> opinions. For
> every argument against using fusebox there is one for
> using it!
> HTH
> Kola
I absolutely agree. As a matter of fact, I second it. the up-side is
that after you've built a small app or two with any given framework
you should have a decent feel for whether or not it's a good match for
the way you think. The downside is that doing this does require an
investment of time above and beyond simple research. In my opinion
it's the only way to adequately evaluate a framework.
I've done a lot of work with Fusebox 3 over the past 2 years -- which
is why my first article with performance comparisons focused on that
and the onTap framework -- they were the 2 I already knew. I won't be
publishing the following articles with similar comparisons of FB4 or
Mach-II until I have more time to learn the frameworks.
s. isaac dealey 214-823-9345
team macromedia volunteer http://www.macromedia.com/go/team
chief architect, tapestry cms http://products.turnkey.to
onTap is open source http://www.turnkey.to/ontap
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
